[Chapter-delegates] Proposed law to ban Skype in Russia?
Narelle.Clark at csiro.au
Narelle.Clark at csiro.au
Tue Aug 18 18:26:31 PDT 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grigori Saghyan [mailto:gregor at arminco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 11:52 PM
<snippage>
> In Armenia there is no any difference between SDH based and IP based
> voice services from regulator point of view.
> In 3G network 1 Mbyte transmission cost in Armenia is 5
> cents (5 minute conversation, 1 cent per minute,
> of course, you have to have smartphone with any VoIP software).
> From the other hand you have to pay 10 cents per minute if
> you will call directly via GSM handset.
That is amazing. I wonder how long before they adjust their billing system??
And you find the charges for data move upwards...
> It is very logical to close SIP (and similar like Skype) traffic in
> their network, but here we have a strategic decision -
> traffic neutrality, network must be neutral, user can use
> any standard protocol for data transfer.
Personally, I think blocking and proxying *anything* contravenes the principles of an "Internet service". And not in the spirit or letter of the definitions of Internet hosts as found in the early RFCs.
An "Internet service" means your computer/device is a "host" on the public Internet and you expose or transmit on the IP TCP and UDP ports *you* elect to. Not what others decide to provide you. Anything else is "Internet access" or IMHO duplicitous.
If you choose to purchase a service that has various ports blocked or otherwise rendered inoperable (eg through proxying) then that is a separate issue, and IMO that should be disclosed. This runs to web services, VoIP services, mail services etc etc etc.
In many cases thanks to the prevalence of viruses, ISPs have been able to justify the blocking of mail ports, so you cannot easily run a mail server on many commercial "Internet services".
The principle runs to the essential features of what the Internet comprises. How it works.
[Unfortunately right now I can't find that particular RFC - STD1/RFC 1600 isn't helping(!), so I would appreciate someone else pointing it out. Also, if these definitions aren't as clear as my memory recalls, then they darn well should be, and we should be doing something about that!]
> In Russia main argument was hearing problem, and Russian operators
> trying to use that argument for Skype limitation.
> Looks after migration on IP based voice transport all
> operators in the world will use same argument :(
I think the term you mean instead of "hearing problem" is "interception" or "legal intercept".
[Your English is so much better than my Armenian! :-) ]
There is no technical impediment to legal intercept.
What the operators are looking for is the easy to use "test port" on a classical voice switch, or simply connecting a set of aligator clips into the old copper wires. While IP intercept isn't quite that simple, the technical processes on common IP network equipment are not challenging.
So this is what we Australians call a furphy. Not true.
Regards
Narelle
VP ISOC-AU
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list